I don't understand the legal basis of this decision

Yeah, they kept telling us too that you never know which one-third is which.

I gave up my license ten years ago when I retired. I made up my mind to do that when I went to a (required to keep your license) conference where they were "explaining the rules" to us, about how we would have to - for life - continue to attend conferences and get CEUs to keep our licenses, and there's no "retiree discount" for conference costs, and they don't care how old and feeble you get you still have to attend, and they said, "You can retire from a job, but you can't retire from being a social worker." Yeah? Hide and watch me!

 

LOL, I love that commercial! I almost pee my pants laughing everytime!! LOL!

 

I don't buy that.

I went to counselling recently. My brother passed away at the end of the winter and I'm one of those folks that apparently acts as if bad things haven't happened until it gets too overwhelming.

I went to the counselor after it got to be too much and frankly, she told me nothing I didn't already know and yes, I probably would have gotten better without her. BUT it certainly would have taken me longer and it was invaluable to have my own way of dealing with grief validated by her and be told what I already knew by an objective professional. She did, in a couple of sessions what friends, family and myself hadn't been able to do in several months.

Maybe looking to counselling as something that "fixes" people is the wrong approach. Maybe it's worth is in the fact that it's just a way to ease the burden of a path you're already on.

 

Sure people need to be told when they're wrong but honestly, and especially as a parent who most likely does that a lot with her kids, when does that work? I'd bet it's even less effective then working within a client's belief system.

Also, and again, what's "wrong"? Sure it sounds great to say being gay is wrong in God's eyes but what use is that if you're client is a liberal Christian, or not Christian or atheist? What headway will you make? Imagine going to a friend and asking for advice on a shy child and having them give you lots of "common sense" advice about how homeschooling impairs a child's social development. Helpful?

Um, no. Counselors go into the counseling profession with their eyes wide open. They choose to pursue that career knowing the guidelines and demands. It's not a matter of force.

I think there's a BIG misunderstanding about what counseling is. It is NOT about telling people what to do. You don't get to tell a person to go have an abortion or offer advice on how they should kill themselves (illeagal last time I checked). In fact I'm pretty sure such a thing would run counter to their ethical guidelines - that's been you point after all, no? A counselor is there to offer tools to a person so they can find their own path and make their own choices.

When I went I was offered a neutral person to talk to and some exercises to help me deal with my grief. At no point was I told what to do to get over it.

Counselling is more about teaching people to fish rather then giving them the fish.

Again, you wouldn't do either as a counselor. Counselling is not about telling people what to do. If someone came to a counselor who needed help dealing with a possible abortion the counselor would likely ask questions to find out the persons views and then offer tools and resources for them to look at so they could make a decision they'd be okay with.

As for the gay client, why are they going to the counselor? If it's because he/she is having a hard time communicating with their partner what on earth would be the relevance of you opinion of what God thinks about their sexuality? If they ARE coming with questions about their sexuality and God then you still don't get to tell them your opinion. But you could offer advice on how to find out and/or who to talk with ("Have you discussed this with your pastor?").

I think people have either a Dr. Phil model or a Minister model in their heads when they think of what a counselor does. Neither applies. If it doesn't work for you, don't go and for goodness sake don't become one. But frankly, I'm quite thankful for the woman who I went to.

 

Haven't read all...
but as a psych major...she has a choice. She could get her degree from a Christian University.
It is more expensive, I am sure. But that is why I chose a Christian College...because I didn't want to run into stupidity and deal with the hassle, although I am interested in psychology, I personally think Freud was a pervert.
on the other hand. I have no intention of doing any counceling...I don't have the correct temperment.

So there are choices out there...we just aren't as free as we would like to think. We are supposed to be a peculiar people. yes?

My pastor, also a masters prepared councelor chooses not to get licensed and he does "pastoral" counseling because he wants to be able to choose whom he works with.

 

It is my understanding that regardless of where she gets her degree, she won't be able to practice under an APA license because she is unable to use best practice according to them because their stance on homosexuality conflicts with her beliefs. Please correct me if I am misunderstanding how licensure works in that field.

 

Depends on just what counseling degree and license she's going for, Brooke. You don't have to like take an oath swearing you'll never tell a client this or that. She would likely have some ethics questions on the licensing exam - but all you have to do is answer them "correctly", not believe in your heart that they are the truth. Kind of like a Christian kid in a state university biology class that has to write the expected answers on the test, not believe them, and he'll get his A just like the atheist will.

 

You just furthered my point. As a christian it IS my job to warn others that a choice they are considering is wrong. That is biblical. All Christians have the biblical responsibility of helping others make right choices. I couldn't give someone the 'tools' needed to do something that is morally wrong. That is why these students are not going to make it trying to be counselors. The secular idea of counseling is to 'see them where they are', not see them where they should be...

 

That's true PeanutSweet (to some degree, anyhow). Which is why I stand by the courts decision to uphold her expulsion. She wouldn't make it in the counseling field. She has no business there because of the specific job description.

It is exactly the same as a Catholic man going to seminary to become a Pentecostal pastor... because he wants to "pastor" a Pentecostal church and show the congregants the error of their ways. It is neither welcome nor ethical. And he wouldn't fit the job description.

 

I have to disagree on the notion that this is acceptable. I would never dream of giving an answer like that. In fact, even as a student with a GPA of 4.0, I refused to answer a test that way. My science teacher in school ended up giving us a essay test so that I could explain my reasoning rather than multiple choice. If you let your beliefs be known and stand firm in your faith, God will either lead you through it or away from it, but never will you have excuse to deny the truth.

 

Brooke, I've taken licensing exams. They are multiple choice, and "Pray about it" was never one of the choices. I have to say that I was not much practicing my Christianity at that time, so I didn't have that big a difficulty with it. But even so, the questions are phrased such that "based on your coursework", which one of these is acceptable/not acceptable. And truthfully, based on your coursework, one of their choices is the "correct" one, even if for a Christian none of them would stand up to close scutiny where it really counts.

 

Trust me, I got into my fair share of debates with the teacher in my anthropology class. But when it came to exams, the syllabus was clear: we were to answer according to our lecture notes. It stated that in black and white. So to answer otherwise was to not follow the directions. Not only that, but in a multiple choice situation, there was no option for what I thought the right answer was...

I.E. If the question was, "What anthropologist discovered the proof of human evolution when he unearthed A. Afarensis, "Lucy"? The answer choices where four prominent anthropologists (of course Leeky would be one, as he is the correct answer). How would you answer that? You'd have to leave it blank. Even though Leeky did, indeed, unearth Lucy.

I had a Bible professor at my Christian University once tell us that the only thing you can prove by going head-to-head with the professor on the exam is that you're bull-headed and care more about being difficult than matriculating with a marketable resume. He said there are plenty of times to challenge a teacher... the exam was not one of those time.

And then, as Lindina and I have experienced, the exams are usually qualified with something like, "according to the notes" or "according to the text." (Either in the syllabus or on the exam itself)

 

I love that commercial too! I don't even Tivo through it!

 

Yeah, but somehow I can't see Jesus, marking the 'correct' answer, just to pass the test...

 

Oh, I'm sorry, am I being bull headed now?

 

I guess it all boils down to whether or not you are willing to compromise in certain areas. For me, I am unwilling to compromise with the public school on issues of faith, so I homeschool. If my children were in a class that was teaching evolution, I would not encourage them to attend the class, let alone answer the questions in such a way as to say "God's speed" to the author. I understand the "disclaimer" the author of the test included (i. e. answer according to the notes); however, that should be a red flag in regard to your chosen field requiring compromise. I'm not going to say that I would not battle this myself, but there is a perfect way to handle every situation and I believe the Spirit tells us what that perfect way is. We may not always like what God asks us to do, but we still must do it or endure the consequences.

 

If the question was, "According to lecture, what species is considered the primary evidence of evolution?" Then the answer is definitively A. Afarenses. That's not the "correct" answer, it IS the CORRECT answer. That was my point.

So, yeah, Jesus would answer correctly

 

In all fairness, it would be a rare instance that each test on such topics would be prefaced with "according to lecture".

 

But by stating in the syllabus (which is a legal document, btw) that all test questions are to be answered according to lecture notes and the text book information, that is exactly what happens: The preemptive disclosure applies to each individual question on every exam. It would therefore be redundant to say "according to the lecture" 100 times on a 100 question exam... because the syllabus covers it all 100 times.